"Writing is at the mercy of the largest number of amateurs—almost the entire population."— Jacques Barzun

"When a writer thinks of his readers, common sense will tell him that a few of them will certainly not be his intellectual equals, but that the majority will be so, and that there will be some who are greatly his superiors; he should comport himself as a gentleman toward all of them."

— Robertson Davies

"Nearly every fiction writer in the world drinks more whisky than is good for him. He does it to give himself faith, hope, and courage. A person is a fool to become a writer. His only compensation is absolute freedom."— Roald Dahl

“I’m afraid that surprise, shock, and regret is the fate of authors when they finally see themselves on the page. . . . Seeing one’s inadequate English frozen into type is a humiliating experience.” — Julia Child, My Life in France

“I think of it as it could have been, with its prolixities docked, its dullnesses enlivened, its fads eliminated, its truths multiplied.” — From the dedication page ofH. W. Fowler's Modern English Usage (1926)

One Writer's Ravings:
A Logophile's Blog
for Language Lovers

"To you alone can I turn, Mr. Elster," writes Andrew Chaveriat of New York City, adding — as is always prudent when asking for free advice — a bit of welcome flattery: "But first let me thank you for your excellent and matchless Verbal Advantage . . . which I greatly esteem.

"I was wondering if you have a moment to shed some light on the title to a business magazine article published by my bank,” he went on. “The article is about retail banking and is entitled 'Think global, act local.' I informed the editor of our fine magazine that this was nonstandard usage and that the adverbial version of the phrase should have been used: 'Think globally, act locally.'

"He said in reply: 'think global, act local' is a common saying particularly in business English and therefore it is quite right that we used this in our group magazine. I am sure if you were to Google this saying you would get many references to it (I am assuming you've heard of the Internet). Anyway, I am genuinely sorry you were so shocked by this use of modern English.'

"I argue that this use of nonstandard English reflects poorly on our institution. Many nonstandard expressions are widely used, but does that give us the proverbial 'green light' to join the ranks of the unenlightened users of our language? It's bad enough that some editors do not recognize the error in using the above phrase. But it's even worse, in my book, that some editors condone and embrace such usage even when they know it is nonstandard.

"Your reply (as time allows) would be most welcome."

Here was the reply I sent:

Dear Andrew,

Your question is a challenging one because the answer is not clear-cut. Look at the matter in one way and you are right. Look at it in another and the editor is right. And regardless of which side you take, it would be unfair to assert that the other person's preference is flat-out wrong.

Let me try to sort out that equivocal statement for you . . .

We typically think of adverbs as ending in -ly, but in fact adverbs come in many forms. For example, there are adverbs of direction ("go out," "come down"); adverbs of degree, which often precede an adjective ("pretty stupid," "very cute," "extremely good"); relative adverbs ("come when I call," "don't ask why"); adverbs of time ("it arrived Monday"); negative adverbs, which also often precede an adjective ("scarcely noticeable," "not quite able"); adverbs made from nouns ("send it Fedex"); and descriptive adverbs, the ones most of us recognize as adverbs because they qualify an adjective and usually have the suffix -ly ("talk quickly," "eat greedily," "walk awkwardly").

What most of us don't realize, however, is that a fair number of descriptive adverbs have two forms, one with and one without the -ly. That is why you can finely chop your vegetables or chop them fine; you can thinly slice a loaf of bread or slice it thin; you can take something easily or you can simply take it easy.

Many of these adverbs without -ly are used idiomatically. You can drive slowly or drive slow, come quickly or come quick, burn brightly or burn bright. We can reach high for something or think highly of it. And we always eat right, run low, come close, come clean, stand firm, sit tight, and, when instructed to do so by a dentist, open wide.

Everyone knows, as well, that idiom dictates that you are sitting pretty, never prettily; that an amateur athlete aspires to turn pro(fessional), not turn professionally; and that all men are created equal, not equally. In these examples you can see that the adverb denotes a condition governed by the verb, not the manner in which the verb is done. In other words, you don't sit down in a pretty manner; you look good where you're sitting. You don't do a fine job of turning; you turn yourself into a professional. And you are not created in an equal manner, like a widget in an assembly line; you are created as the equal of all others who are created.

To further complicate things, adverbs that follow certain verbs known as copulative or linking verbs ("feel," "seem," "appear," "become," "look," "smell," and "taste" are among them) describe the subject rather than the verb, and so do not end in -ly and instead take what appears to be an adjectival form. For example, we look nice, not nicely; we seem happy, not happily; and we properly feel bad, not badly. Likewise, our food smells and tastes either good or bad, not well or badly.

Are you perhaps beginning to see how, in your case, all this makes a black-and-white ruling difficult? If you can drive slow and look good, perhaps even look amazing, then you need only take but a small linguistic step to arrive at the slogan for a luxury car that I saw on TV the other day: "Drive beautiful." At first glimpse it seems wrong, maybe even a bit ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet it's grammatically unassailable and the meaning is clear. "Drive beautiful" isn't an order to drive in an aesthetically pleasing way; it's a promise that we will be seen as beautiful if we drive a certain luxury car.

"Think big." "Go postal." "Drive beautiful." People in business, and particularly in advertising, love to come up with punchy adverbial phrases like these that slightly bend the rules. Even literary greats do it occasionally, as when the poet Dylan Thomas writes, in his famous villanelle, "Do not go gentle into that good night."

So it's no surprise (to me, at least) that the editor countered you (rather testily) not by arguing that "think global, act local" is grammatically defensible but by claiming that, even if it does bend the rules, it’s a well-known slogan that readers would recognize. And in fact, a quick search of Google News yields persuasive evidence that it is well established, and that (like the slogan "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle") it apparently originated with those businesses, agencies, and individuals involved with the environmental movement.

So I think we must concede that your editor has a point. "Think global, act local" is established to the extent that the correct forms, with -ly, would seem hypercorrect to many people. And if so many words already can have two adverbial forms that function idiomatically, why get upset about adding a couple more to the list? And yet, and yet . . .

One of my favorite commentators on usage, Theodore M. Bernstein, whose work I quote several times in Verbal Advantage, has this to say about choosing whether to use an adverbial form with -ly or without it: "In general, the -ly forms are favored in reputable writing and the shorter forms in casual language, but this guide is by no means invariable and is, moreover, subject to the whims of idiom. . . . Where there is a real choice, however — where idiom does not dictate one form or the other — the reputable writer will prefer the -ly form."

In the case of "think global, act local," we are not dealing with established shorter adverbial forms; we are dealing with two adjectives that have been wrested from their normal position in the language and made to do double duty as adverbs. This is neither idiomatic nor grammatical, and therefore the reputable writer, following Bernstein's advice, should hew to the traditional forms. It is undeniable, however, that the slogan has been embraced widely enough to transcend, for many, any objections on the grounds of idiom or grammar.

So what do we do? For the editor to print "think globally, act locally" would be correct, but it would also be unfamiliar. Which is worse: to be wrong or strange? In this case, which you say involves a title or headline, my editorial instincts tell me that the slogan, despite its liberties, is acceptable, but ONLY when it is obviously used as a slogan. In all other contexts the editor should use the traditional -ly forms.

In other words, I would subtly try to draw a distinction between the rule-bending motto of a movement, familiar to many, and the conventions of standard English. So, for example, if someone quoted in the article said, "Our company is trying to think global and act local," I would let it stand. That's how the person said it, referring unmistakably to the motto. But if the writer's copy read "Ms. X said her company is trying to think global and act local," I would correct it and use the -ly forms.

I hope that my compromise position on this question doesn't frustrate you unduly and brings both you and the editor some measure of satisfaction. And by the way, Andrew, if it's any consolation, there is no way, grammatically or idiomatically, to get away with using the shorter forms after the words "more" or "less." I guarantee that your editor wouldn't be caught dead printing "Ms. X said her company is trying to think more global and act more local." Any editor who lets a gaffe like that get by will soon be looking for a more better job.

Thank you for the education that you provide us with. I agree with the writer that "To you alone can I turn..." and I would include those whom you mention in Verbal Advantage and in your writings.

-
Jose Miura

February 25, 2016 8:56 AM EST

I thought that I came across an eponym, Academus, but now can't find it listed as a word anywhere. Is it word or just a name?

-
Thomas Dreiling

February 25, 2016 9:46 AM EST

As far as I can tell, "Academus" is a name but not an eponym. <i>Webster 2</i> says he was, in Greek mythology, "a hero who told Castor and Pollux where Theseus had hidden Helen." <i>Random House 2</i> says he was "an Arcadian whose estate became a meeting place for Athenian philosophers." The lexicographic evidence suggests that he is the source of our English words <i>academy</i> and <i>academic</i>.

-
Charles Elster

June 29, 2016 7:48 AM EDT

Hi Mr. Elster, <br>Thanks for your expert explanation on this.<br>I am not a native English speaker. However, I have been inspired by your logophilia. I like your books, in which your advice on the standardized usage of confusing words helps me significantly and your correction of deviant usage and pronunciation benefits me tremendously. I am more than a fan of yours. I am a devout follower and intend to become a staunch disciple. <br>In your response to Andrew's inquiry, you wrote in the last sentence as "Any editor who lets a gaffe like that get by will soon be looking for a more better job". I have a question regarding your use of "more better". Is it a standardized usage? I just think it is erroneous or a typo of yours. It should be "much better" as "more" cannot be used as a modifier for a comparative adjective (in our case, "better" is a comparative adjective). <br>I look forward to hearing from you. <br>Regards,<br>J.

-
J. Chen

June 29, 2016 8:20 AM EDT

Thanks, J. Chen, for your kind and flattering words about my work. I need all the followers and disciples I can get, especially ones who are willing to shell out money to buy my books.<br><br>What puzzled you about my final sentence about the editor getting "a more better job" was my use of irony (EYE-ruh-nee). Irony is "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning" (Random House Dictionary). In this case, I was deliberately making a grammatical mistake (pairing the unnecessary "more" with the comparative adjective "better") to create a humorous conclusion to my point about how, in certain constructions, it's ungrammatical to use "more" or "less" with adjectives (e.g., "think more global"); you need an adverb there.<br><br>Irony in any language can be hard to discern if that language isn't your first language. (Heck, even my mother, who spoke English impeccably, always had trouble picking up on my ironic remarks.) So it's understandable that you had some trouble with my use of it. But bear in mind that it can be one of a writer's most useful tools, particularly when a bit of humor is needed to leaven an otherwise dense discussion.<br><br>Thanks again for your interest in my work, and good words to you! -- CHE

-
Charles Harrington Elster

June 30, 2016 8:06 AM EDT

Kind CHE,<br>Thanks for the exceptionally interesting explanation. I have absorbed what you meant. Would it be better to add a quotation mark to your irony if it does count as an irony (It might ruin the original flavor of your irony, though, I guess)? However, in accordance with your definition of "irony", it seems that "more better" does not constitute an irony at all as it does not involve the deliberate manipulation of meanings of a word or an expression. Furthermore, I just think that the case we are discussing here is drastically different from the intentional use of adjective after finite verb. In "think global, act local", I totally agree with your argument, though--but in the . <br>I like your punchline--"good words to you". Is this a pun here? "Good Words to You" is a great book. <br>Anyway, I am tremendously grateful for you taking the time to interact with me and offer your enlightening advice. <br>If you are interested in getting your books to be translated in Chinese and more ESL learners in China to buy your books (the past few years has witnessed a gradual increase in the total number of Chinese students pursuing education in the United States, which indicates there is a huge demand for wonderful books such as yours), I am more than happy to offer my unconditional assistance. <br>Have a nice day. <br>Sincerely,<br>J.

-
J. Chen

June 30, 2016 4:30 PM EDT

I'm not a big fan of quotation marks around words or phrases that are intended to be ironic or intentionally misused because I think that, in most cases, it's condescending to the reader. But you have a point, and I'll keep it in mind.<br><br>Regarding your friendly offer of help to make my work available to Chinese readers, the short answer is YES, I'll take all the help and advice I can get. Currently I have a contract with a publisher in Taiwan to translate and sell my latest book, WORD WORKOUT. If you have any thoughts on how to make my other work available in Chinese -- or in English for Chinese ESL learners -- please don't hesitate to share them.<br><br>And if, at this point, we're going to discuss business, rather than posting a comment here, please respond through my website email at words@members.authorsguild.net (or click on the link in the sidebar to the right that says WRITE TO CHARLIE).<br><br>Also, regarding my signoff, "Good words to you": I borrowed it from one of my idols of language mavenry, the poet and etymologist John Ciardi, who years ago had a public radio segment about word stories where he would sign off with that tag line.<br><br>Felicitous diction to you -- CHE